Pax Areks wrote:
I see none. Making it so that a player can push a button to "right all his/her wrongs" takes any and all sting out of a Reputation system. Time heals wounds and I believe should be one of the factors in Positive Reputation gain.
The more time you spend not doing Negative Reputation actions, then you are able to earn Positive Reputation. Positive Reputation should then be doled out on a daily basis in small amounts such that you can't "sin on Monday and be fully forgiven on Tuesday (or Wed-Sun) of the same week.
As an out of the air example, if you lose 100 Reputation Points on a day it (to me) should take you a month to earn those points back (if you desire to). By earn I mean your character "staying clean" and not committing any Negative Reputation activities.
Again, if you make it so players can click a button and grind out even 1 point back to the positive then (to me) the Reputation system has zero teeth as players can and will find a way to game it.
And no, PvPing against allies/friends/alts is completely not within the spirit of the Positive Reputation idea especially with regard to earning it back. It's completely a "I wanna be bad and mean to folks Monday, but want to be able to walk back into town and buy groceries on Wednesday."
Charles Manson can't go work in a soup kitchen and have his Reputation restored to Neutral(0) in a day. The person who gets drunk and beats their spouse can't gain that good reputation back with said spouse in a day or two. It takes time. And focusing on my specific examples is evidence my of missing my basic point: It takes time. Time is a premium item and makes one consider doing an action or not.
The element of WoW I enjoyed was the humor. Nothing else comes to mind.
One more element than I. I found the humor to be too "try-hard" and not funny at all. Only played WOW for about 6 weeks in early 2006 after I left Star Wars Galaxies in November 2005(NGE). After I left WoW I never once had even the smallest desire to go back.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Yeah, an example on the very far end of the bell curve where a Wizard has a higher Dex than a Rogue isn't very useful for talking about comparisons.
Which is even better as I personally don't believe Wizards and Rogue should be compared against each other. The options available to Wizards should come from folks who are experienced in playing them within the rules and have the vision to see more than just the two or three "usual suspect" builds that constantly talked about.
Faithfully implementing as near all of the core RB spells as possible will help with this. If it is a point of it not being able to be done due to coding issues I understand. If it's a matter of the given dev(s) working on it just can't see a use for it or a way for it to cause an effect then I would hope that dev has both the freedom and permission to reach out to the us as a resource.
Rolled stats make any TT comparison worthless. If you were using point buy to make your characters per PFS rules, I think you would be behind in AC vs the Rogue.
Well, I don't agree with you in that it's worthless. That said if anything it only changes the numbers by a point or 2 and the wizard still has an AC of over 20. The wizard just may be on the trailing side then and only by, again, a point or two.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Most certainly, and with keeping within the scope of the PFRB rules as well (no "house rules"). A character's AC score effectively begins when that player sits down and rolls the 6 stats. I am the Wizard in our Kingmaker campaign and I rolled an 18 and a 17 initially. I put the 18 in Intelligence and the 17 in Dexterity. Our Rogue's highest roll was 15. I'm ahead by +1 out of the gate.
He purchased Studded Leather with his initial funds, I picked up Mage Armor as I have always done since the spell was implemented in RPG gaming. I'm ahead AC wise by +2 now.
Now, our group pretty much does the same as yours in dividing up loot. We d20 roll and high roll chooses first, after all have picked we start in order again if anything is left. If a Ring of Protection is there and the Rogue chooses the Dagger +3 as his first choice (and he picks ahead of me) the all bets are of and I take the Ring.
It also doesn't take too many levels before as an Arcane Caster I can make Rings and Amulets for myself via Feats. The only part of Pathfinder I find lacking is its implementation of Metamagic Feats. I have never found an instance where slotting a lower level spell was preferable to slotting a spell of the appropriate level. So we both have Dodge and are Medium sized.
Substituting the bracers of armor for the Amulet of Natural Defense I created (and that the Rogue doesn't have currently) my AC is comparable to his. I will admit it does help for me that we did have a loot scenario like the one above in which he chose a very nice magic weapon (it had elemental dmg and enchantments that brought it's threat range down to 15 or 16) and in doing so passed up a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4, which I took.
My AC sans Mage Armor is 17 and over 20 with it. Over his by a point or two and not by going too far out on limbs to do it. We don't run (don't believe in) Monty Haul and enforce settlement levels and the probability of there being enough coin in circulation to even buy found items we want to sell. We even have session where there is no loot generated, just roleplay. As conservative as our campaign is in those regards, I still at this time would have had the means to craft the Belt +4 on my own if I had desired.
And that's not even maxing out the respective item bonuses of the items I have. A Ring of Protection, Amulet of NA at 1 under max bonus with Mage Armor plus your inherent AC base (and Dodge) is over 20.
So yeah, again, not going BSC it is fairly easy and normal to build high AC mages. Especially if you aren't keen on the Metamagic Feats.
I could see all kinds of potential abuse of arcane mark. As mush as I like the spell, having the ability to constantly write semi-permanent messages on other players would cause huge performance issues, not to mention the griefing.
It fades if cast on a living being (spell says a month, that can be adjusted to quicker periods for gameplay purposes). Additionally an Erase spell will remove it instantly.
I don't agree that enough has been presented to warrant not including it based on the the "someone might do something mean" with it. The same "bad language" filter that will no doubt be in for chat/character naming/etc., can be applied to this spell as well and refuse to let the caster type the offensive words or phrases.
I would love to see every single core rulebook Arcane (and Divine for that matter) spell in game. Even Comprehend Languages has a place even if we don't have the racial languages (and inability to understand them if you do not invest) as we saw in Original Everquest. It could still be used to translate written items found in the world place as content prods.
If a developer has trouble thinking of how any spell listed in the PFRB could be used in a MMO please ask for ideas here as opposed to discounting it.
Sure. Conjuration, Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation, Necromancy, Universalist and the Elemental schools.
The spells from these schools should get equal attention as the ones from Evocation that are primarily direct damage causing. The Arcane option for not being a "glass cannon" should be and Arcane Swiss Army Knife.
And that's the thing, right. I'd like to know more about the person(s) designing wizards/Sorcerers. I want to know more about their PF TT experience.
The reason I want to know is that the majority of the people ages 25 and below that I've run into in FLGS these days have only played 4th edition DnD OR if they have played PF they have played it in a Hack-N-Slash manner only.
My hope is that the persons designing the the arcane casting classes fully understand the widespread utility of the majority of the Arcane Spells and how they could translate into an MMO with a little thought. What I hope isn't the case is that the mentality of said designers isn't the one of "RPG gaming is about the Direct Damage Combatz, yo!"
Indeed I hope that a mandatory campaign of King Maker is being ran and that all staff are required to take on one of the roles of governing. I know the Core Rulebook is the major influence however if you the team is ever to open up a second book the Ultimate Campaign book should be Number 2, followed by all the Beastiary books.
Beings which are capable of expressing their consent or lack thereof are treated differently than beings which are not. Near as I can tell, my dogs are very happy to live with me and let me give them food and shelter.
If they weren't happy they would express it and you would know it. Kind of hard to misinterpret a hard bite. Pretty much means they aren't happy about something/someone.
I'm quite sure dogs (at least the one I own and those my friends have) can perceive and feel based on my own personal experiences and from those of others I know. Course not every human can perceive those instances in their pets.
Pax Areks wrote:
You and I both. I know many other may find it trivial but I'd include bunny hopping as well.
Pax Rafkin wrote:
They are, but Stealth does not confer the invisible state. Invisibility is gained only via the spell or other magical means. Stealth gives a bonus to concealment.
That said: "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack."
This not an opposed roll. This is not Stealth vs Perception. It's a flat out round to round check the target gets to make. Sure, it may not be enough to attack the Rogue, but it should allow them the opportunity to flee the situation.
So while not visually, a character does have other means that would warn them something is amiss.
Pax Areks wrote:
I completely agree. Stealth alone should never allow one to sneak up on another when there is nothing of mass blocking vision between the two. Now, if the Rogue had the spells Invisibility and Silence cast on them as well as was either Ethereal or Incorporeal via some magic item or spell, then yes they should be able to break ranged distance unseen/unheard/undetected up to 5ft from their target.
A Rogue just having maxed stealth alone should not unless his target remains facing away from him/her the entire time and the Rogue wins the Stealth vs Perception roll each turn until they are at 5ft (5ft being normal melee attack range). If ever there is a point in which a straight line can be drawn by the server from the stalked character's eyes to a point on the body of the Rogue Stealth should be dropped, Rogue detected.
So even if a character sits and spins a savvy Rogue would still be able to make the 5ft mark using cover (buildings, large boxes/crates, trees, boulders, hills, statues, etc) to block line of sight as they approach.
Invisible Rogues should only happen if the Rogue has access to the Invisibility spell. Even if they are invisible, there should still be a chance they make audible noise and for sure other visual clues should exist (i.e., if they pass through water they still make waves, if on soft ground they leave footprints, etc. )
To give Rogues Stealth and apply the states of Invisible, Silence, Incorporeal and Ethereal all into it does not, to me, seem desirable or even close to being true/near the actual PF game principles.
Being in Stealth does not equal being incorporeal. You most certainly should be affected "normally" (saves and all) if under stealth and you are in the middle of an AOE effect.
Just because someone may not see you doesn't mean you aren't physically there.
Invisibility stealth is not progress. Indeed, Invisibility is its own separate condition which enhances Stealth and thus should not be the basis for Stealth.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving
Firmly believe that maintaining that principle is not detrimental to gameplay. Part of Stealth should also include the player's own ability to use the foliage/landscape to move in closer to their target. That said, having Stealth convey a state where a character could possibly walk in circles around a "target" and the target never see him would only seem appropriate if the character in stealth has both Invisibility and Silence applied to them.
Even then a character in stealth, depending on terrain, will still leave footprints and thus a means to detect them. I know that if I were walking on a sandy/soft dirt open space or through a meadow of thick soft grass and I glanced back and saw another set of footprints forming in a line toward me, or the grass matting to the ground in like manner OR parting as if flowing around something...I would use those clues to guide any area attack I had available to me.
Classic single "classed" Rogues don't go incorporeal via their own skill options via Pathfinder rules. Therefore using only their own "class" skill options they should never exist in a state to where they are completely undetectable without the aid of magic.
PFO, in my opinion, would benefit immensely more if the devs found new ways to present certain mechanics that force players a little bit out of their comfortable "I know this mechanic because I've mastered its use in 5 other MMOs" zone.
Keeping it as close to as it is in PF and veering away from how it has been done in 5 or however many past MMOs to me is preferable. Just because it was comfortable in those games to me is not enough reason to implement it here in lieu of doing it a more PF'y way.
Shane Gifford wrote:
This assumes that all groups won't have a stealthed contingent patrolling around it as they move. Any group that has hostile intent and tries to move into max Perception range would equally be in max Perception range of those they are trying to sneak closer to and would be a risk also of being spotted.
I see more of a tactical dance between opposing stealth having characters and their commander's ability to employ/deploy them. If the attacker's stealth scouts are spotted by the defender's stealth scouts attacker/defender roles could get quickly reversed.
Edit: Just reread the highlighted and we are essentially saying the same. Comprehension fail on my part. It's late and I need to go to bed, lol!
-I like the sound of Specialization. Reminds of Specialization from 2nd Ed. AD&D.
-The Master of Opportunity feats sound interesting. It seems to gel well with what I had in my mind of "doing it a different way" than someone else of your class/level.
-Sneak Attacks sounds like I would have hoped it to.
-Stealth...I like that it is not "turn on and completely invisible". The one issue I have with what is written is that while the stealthed character is too far away as determined by the server that attacks won't work against them. I understand melee (at distances over 4-5 ft.) and bows/crossbow type of ranged attacks. What I do not think should be mitigated are area of effect attacks like bottles of acid, Fireball type spells and any other type of attack that blankets an area.
I hope that a distinction as far as the type of attack that is being made is made when determining whether it affects a character in Stealth as some attacks reasonably should (factoring in Dodge/UD as well as other saves) even if the attack can't see them.
I loved the crowd control aspects of Dark Age of Camelot as far as PvE combat. I don't know that those would translate well for PvP and while I would like them there for PvE they should probably be "greyed out" for PvP.
As far as PvP combat I'd be happy with something akin to one of Lee's past games in Fallen Earth.
Ahh, bummer. Well, the gist of it was that the in game "guild" mechanics allowed for a single guild to compartmentalize and then allowed each section its own rank structure, communications tools, etc.
It's much more exhaustive and detailed than I can muster the words for at this moment and all of those features tie back into the guild's website (provided by CIG) and if I remember right will be accessible to mobile devices as well.
I know some (most) of this may be beyond the scope of MVP however I would hope such features (more importantly the depth and leeway of them) were on the minds of the developers and the base for implementing them would be incorporated into the game at EE.
Great point. That's the major other side of the coin I'd like to see given equal attention to is the ability of "attacked" to have an exhaustive set of means and methods to evade contact with bandits when employed.
Merchants have much invested in their caravans and to only have hiring NPC guards or PC guards as an option seems a bit wanting. Indeed all of the options listed in bold should reflect an available tactic for merchants to use in addition to hiring npc and/or pc guards.
Ryan said they are using Turbine's Hybrid system which includes a monthly subscription that gives you access to all things. The CS will be for cosmetic and account convenience options. So if they maintain this then you can just forget about the MT stuff and pay your sub and be happy. That's what I intend to do.
The only use of the CS I can see myself doing is if there is a clothing item that i think fits my character that completes his style.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
My guess, as it is the most glaring part of CU's design, is the near total elimination of PvE. That in itself cuts millions of dollars in development costs. Interesting that that is pretty much the same as making a "sandbox" game instead of a themepark (ESO).
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Because someone has sold them that they can pull and retain a large portion of that 6 million units sold fan base and hold them in an online world. Where you have 150,000 subscribers someone has told them they will have 2.5 to 3 million based on fan brand loyalty.
Too many companies think their IP has that something that others who have tried and failed in the recent past didn't. They think the IP will carry them while they used tired old themepark mechanics that 95% of the MMO playing base have figured out and are bored with it.
Very true. Zenimax is going to have to make good on their 4-6 week content turn around time as well as offer up something unique to substitute what modders get out of the single player experience to keep those ES modder fans.
In all honesty I'll give the game a spin as PFO won't be out or even EE started when t launches. I like their visuals if anything plus it'll give me a change to experience some of that world as I have not played any ES game to completion, and only one of them about 1/4 way.
I thought ESO was realm vs realm vs realm, like Dark Age of Camelot was? That might get some folks who miss the RvRvR aspect of DAoC, but aren't interested in going back to a game that dated. There are some who like having set teams and set opponents, but may be tired of the 'cowboys & indians' WoW style with only 2 sides. It might carve a niche.
For a limited time only. The majority of those folks are going to the other former Mythic developer's game which IS the spiritual successor to DAoC, Mark Jacobs' Camelot Unchained. It is all PvP (little to nil PvE) and three Realms.
If they can make their goal of putting out 15 hours of content every 4 to 6 weeks they may be just fine charging that subscription.
And before it even starts, unless you work for Zenimax and know first hand their content creation ability, stow the naysaying. Just because companies may not have been able to do it in the past doesn't mean that Zenimax hasn't created a process to actually pull it off.
Some day developers will find a way to push out content to keep the majority of themepark players happy. That day may come with ESO. Who knows. They think they can do it so we'll have to wait and see if they can.
The thing that will hurt ESO the most is how close it is or isn't to the single player game in terms of what a player can / can't do. ES IP fans are what are going to make or break the game. It'll launch like every TP since WOW, swell with numbers of fair weather MMO players for 3 months, then they'll migrate off and what'll primarily be left are ES fans.
Tork Shaw wrote:
Ahh, okay. Knowing that does change my view of the raid picture painted so far to a more favorable one. If I had to invest a lot only to hope not to be raided I would balk at investing any. If that investment is minimal with a potential for a good return but also a good chance to be raided, then I would take the chance.
I like a few others, were thinking that outposts would be a considerable cost to erect.
Tork Shaw wrote:
Well, while you are on that side of River Freedoms, remember that this is a game and that if you make it too hard to hold anything, nothing will get built. Usually the ones you are on the side of don't build anything, they just take. Make it too hard to hold and builders won't build.
I don't envy your task to balance that.
Oh, and I certainly hope that if you are going to allow raiders to strip mine, then the owners of an outpost should have the same option to strip mine their own outpost.
This is what I have talking about for a while. If it is going to be this easy to raid and making raiding against the law (so your settlement can defend the outpost feeding it) only really causes your corruption to go up in the settlement, then if I'm a settlement owner with a few outpost nodes in the surrounding hexes I'd think seriously about strip mining my own outposts. If they are going to be raided so easily it's not worth it to leave them up for long periods.
Harad Navar wrote:
If I remember correctly the article said that outposts would most likely be on the far edge of hexes away from the settlement.
Oh, and the quote you have from me above was in reference to raiding an "enemy's" outpost in one of their hexes. You will have to travel through their hex, one of your own, then your home hex to carry raided goods to your home. So if you take and hold an enemy's outpost, that outpost isn't automatically "feeding" your settlement. Goods still have to travel 3 hexes, a period of time we don't know how long will take yet, but could see your raided goods being stolen/destroyed on the road making the raid fruitless.
Yep, which is why I mentioned scorched earth a few posts back in this thread. I'd much rather set up an outpost and then strip mine it myself in certain cases. Especially if I can recover the cost of putting it up in the time I have before the act of strip mining destroys the outpost.
I wouldn't do this in a hex that was relatively safe. But a hex that would be potentially raided several times a day...how much am I really gaining from it just letting it go normal? Not much if it is being raided several times a day. So reap it for what it's worth, let it burn, then build another when the node respawns. Rinse and repeat.
Currently as described it does allow for support from settlement if the settlement makes raiding illegal. Then the raiders would be flagged Hostile to all residents. It should extend to allies too, as that's what "allies" are for in large part.
Shane Gifford wrote:
True. Even when we do know, lets use your number and say it takes 11 hours of outpost collection. If I know the node is in an area that has threat I'd probably expend the effort to provide extra guards to recoup my 11 hours, then normal guard until the first signs of trouble. Then ramp up guard and strip mine it.
Of course, that would depend also on an unknown (to me at least) which is how long/often til another such outpost node respawns. Even with that, at some point you would hope to be enough ahead in the resource collections game that strip mining it at dangers notice doesn't affect you (other outposts going in other areas, trade relations). You just do it and after the area calms put it right back up.
Harad Navar wrote:
outposts: semi-permanent structures in wilderness hexes, linked to a holding in that hex. ... Holdings are permanent player-owned structures that establish ownership over a hex, while outposts produce a steady supply of bulk goods every hour they are in operation.If taking over an outpost can divert the outpost output from the hex's holding structure without having to destroy the outpost, I think that occupying an outpost has more value than strip mining and the destruction of the outpost. Outposts feed bulk materials to the structure holding the hex. Taking over the outpost could give a group a base for raiding the holding structure. I think that this may have additional value over strip mining and destruction of the outpost.
Keep in mind that they don't automatically "feed" to the settlement. Little Joey and Big Bob have to use their characters, amongst a few others, to carry those materials ALL the way back to your settlement, which is going to be 3 hexes at least.
Depending on how much time that takes, and how "safe" it is from NPCs and PCs alike as you will have to provide escort for them PLUS defend the outpost...
As someone else pointed out if you can hold it for longer than 1:40 then it may be worth it. If you can't, then strip-mine and get out.
I'm also curious if the dynamics will ever make it worthwhile to strip-mine your own POI if you know you won't be able to defend it.
This is exactly what I was thinking. In reading the blog I really got ZERO incentive to hold onto an outpost. Maybe if it isn't in a "threatened" hex. However, if you have reason to believe that enemies will harass a given hex that is Outpost capable, build the outpost and strip-mine it from the start.
A sort of scorched-earth.
Shane Gifford wrote:
No, this is pretty much how I imagined it from what was written, though I was unsure on a few finer points. But that's why I keep Nihimon around. Oh, and I agree on the levels of purity part. If there are more than 10 for a given item, well on the one hand it would be a pain to resource gather, but if they actually used them all to make truly different items then this crafting system would have so much depth I'd buy rounds for the dev crew for 3 months.
The way I see it, you have interacted with a node once you have retrieved at least 1 resource from it. Single clicking on it (based on a double click to interact world) is akin to looking at it from a distance. So I guess it might be more appropriate to say "having physically interacted with a node".
Since you have to physically interact with a harvesting node for it to update and tell you "hey, I am now a Gathering Node", in my view it has changed states (from harvest to gather) and thus is a "new" node that hasn't been interacted with. At which point I agree with the finder having a limited time to drop a GK on it or the resources go back into the Hex pool to spawn for another player.
Different types of items should automatically stack into different piles when introduced to an inventory. That includes different levels of purity for a given item. This is a common feature in almost every game (I have not played them all, only the majority of AAAs and a host of F2Ps) out there today and even so with Ultima Online back when it launched in 1997. Even in Eve which this games seems to look to often for inspiration.
Shane Gifford wrote:
I can see Xeen's point if "finding" a gathering node consists of interacting (clicking on) with it and thus pulling at least one resource from it at which point it lights up as a Gathering node.
If, on the other hand, you do not have to interact with the node, just merely be in proximity to it to see it pop up as a Gathering node and without withdrawing any resources from it, then in my view an issue exists as others have outlined.
Of course, the gathering kit level was the "second" level of resource gathering. Being able to find a gathering node might require a significant amount of points in that resource harvesting skill.
Being that skill ups are real time based, at least initially I'd have to wonder how many people are actually going to spend time upping to "gathering kit level" just to run around and lock nodes. Even so the nodes are supposed to be randomly placed upon generation and we don't know how long the "limited" time they are locked is going to be.
If it's a matter of nodes going locked and then unlocking and resetting to be found in a slightly different location taking 10-15 minutes that wouldn't seem so egregious to me. If 20-30 minutes that would seem a bit long but I could live with it. Anything over 30 minutes though say is too long and probably should be adjusted down.
Now, how many gathering kits can a given player put down at the same time? How long do they run before completion? How many gathering kits can one player carry?
I think those are some great questions to ask any settlements for which you have interest. I think it also important to bear in mind that no person or group will likely see eye to eye in every single situation. Thus it becomes a matter of give and take and of how much the respective sides are willing to do so.
It's also important for Candidate Charter Companies to figure out what it is they bring to a settlement aside from more bodies. There will be a limited number of settlements, initially, and we don't know how long before more open up. Competition to become a part of one of those initial ones should be fairly tight and I would think most careful settlements are asking the same type questions as some of the ones you have listed here.
The relevant part starts at around the 25th minute. It is the Organizations sections. I'd hope to see the flexibility of the Ranks, Roles, Jobs and divisions parts, yet the entire package, reskinned for this IP, I think would be awesome. I especially like how those features will also be the setup for in game guild management.
The example of the different types of organizations was pretty important too. They were able to structure guilds based on type, showing a typical flat structure, a military structure and then a circular one.
I'm all for things to do for those who have an abundance of time. I will be one of those players. I just would prefer not grinding Influence points or any other points, per say.
I'd rather be engaged in as non a repetitive action as possible.
From the OP:
Reaction to first sentence, paragraph 1: "Oh god, I hope not....*sigh*"
One way that might not seem too grindy is by defining a list of actions a player character can take. When a player successfully completes one of those actions they get a RNG roll and if it exceeds TN, they gain influence.
Not being guaranteed to generate Influence I think will make actions less tempting to grind for earning purposes. Heck you could even put a cool down timer on earning Influence for a given action per day.
May also want to put a behind the scenes tracker on it so that the more varied a player's actions and the more actions they take toward bettering a community they might gain a small modifier to their earning or a daily bonus earning. Actually, all of this would be behind the scenes. If you allow players to see any of it it'll probably generate that desire to grind, heh.
Further, if that fallen/falling settlement has industrious neighbors you'll likely see them make a play to takeover some or all of the previous settlement's lands. There may come a time when land is scarce and prime spots with weak/loose "guilds" holding it will be watched like a hawk. Some hawks will wait until it's dead (so they are more buzzards) while others will pick a good time to invade and take an easy kill.
Course, that's all aggressive and such. You could also see some groups, knowing their time is coming, make diplomatic deals and fold into larger, more stable empires.